3 ms·

I only partially agree with your comment. I wish there were a way to distinguish between people truly profiting off rent-controlled property (as @numlocked said

by jmzbond 13y ago

I only partially agree with your comment. I wish there were a way to distinguish between people truly profiting off rent-controlled property (as @numlocked said) and sometimes not even living here, and those just trying to get a little extra cash to make ends meet. If you think about a year's worth of rental cost, no matter how much you rent out your apartment for in those short term bursts, you're probably never going to even get close to breaking even. And especially if you're one of those people not in a booming industry, it can really help when you're out of town for a weekend or so to try and defray the cost of living. Because while rent is controlled, nothing else in this city is.

optimusclimb 13y ago
Not so sure about your second point - If a person has a place that has been rent controlled for 5+ years, this is quite doable. Additionally, how is renting out a "rent controlled" place at market rates not transferring income from the actual landlord, to the lessee, while defeating the "control" at the same time?
- toufka 13y ago
  It's curious, because there's no reason to think the 'actual landlord' has a right to that additional income. They signed a lease at a given price for a given term. They could have signed that lease at dramatically higher terms. Just because the tenant made out good on the deal in the long term doesn't negate the initial contract. It's not like the landlord must be the only one that makes out best on any given contract...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - optimusclimb 13y ago
    Except that most rental agreements allow "use of the premises" or some such wording to the named lessee, and forbid sub-leasing. The contract that you're referring to doesn't give the renter the ability to then turn around and do whatever they want with the living space for their own financial benefit.

by jmzbond 13y ago

optimusclimb 13y ago

Not so sure about your second point - If a person has a place that has been rent controlled for 5+ years, this is quite doable. Additionally, how is renting out a "rent controlled" place at market rates not transferring income from the actual landlord, to the lessee, while defeating the "control" at the same time?

toufka 13y ago
It's curious, because there's no reason to think the 'actual landlord' has a right to that additional income. They signed a lease at a given price for a given term. They could have signed that lease at dramatically higher terms. Just because the tenant made out good on the deal in the long term doesn't negate the initial contract. It's not like the landlord must be the only one that makes out best on any given contract...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- optimusclimb 13y ago
  Except that most rental agreements allow "use of the premises" or some such wording to the named lessee, and forbid sub-leasing. The contract that you're referring to doesn't give the renter the ability to then turn around and do whatever they want with the living space for their own financial benefit.